BuzzerBeater Forums

If you play the first against the second player,many of the outside skill of the first player,which make him the better overall player,will not give him great advantage when they'll face under the baskets,while obviously the second is a much better inside player
Since I start playing the game,I always give a great importance to the secondaries also for the centers and I searched them for my player...but I don't think that in the inside battle a player will have greater advantage on the prolific Jr or the sensational Han than a superiority of the second player of many levels in the inside skills ;D

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 11:23:12 AM

But look at it another way, wouldn't the first player simply be able to shoot 3 pointers whenever he likes and still make them with great consistency. And he would completely stop passes from the opposing center, and block a lot of jump shots made by the center. And the first player would also be able to pass the ball extremely well which is very important in offense situations.

But look at it another way, wouldn't the first player simply be able to shoot 3 pointers whenever he likes and still make them with great consistency. And he would completely stop passes from the opposing center, and block a lot of jump shots made by the center. And the first player would also be able to pass the ball extremely well which is very important in offense situations.

I have strong doubt about it,because BB it's not like the actual NBA where a center like Channing Frye or Andrea Bargnani or Memo Okur will make the large part of the shots from the arc.I don't think the first player would shoot a lot from the outside when he plays at centers,also if he has the ability to do it,simply because in BB it's not a thing that a center had to do.Also,the second player would have no need to shoot many jump shot,since he has advantage in the post and he can go with a hook or a dunk over the first player
It would be completely different when you put them at PF position,because the first player would completely destroy the second forcing the second player to shoot farther from the basket with shot with a much lower percentage,and with the first player that shoots more from the mid-range,when the second player can defende worse

As I said previously,the first is the better overall player,but the second is better playing the C position.It's like the prime Duncan vs the prime Shaq

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 11:36:41 AM

I disagree. This is a management game which the developers have said time and again is all about making choices. The "best" player should be the player who can contribute the most to his team's success. If a 500k salary player can contribute 30 pts and 20 reb but forces you to field a team of guys who combined average 40 points and 20 rebounds then he might not be as good as a player who can contribute 20 and 10 but enables you to have four other guys who contribute 20 and 10. The choice is up to the manager. A level 5 trainer is NOT worth the money you pay for him relative to a level four trainer, yet many many managers will swear by a level 5 guy.

BB teams do have a salary cap- it is ( max revenue from the arena + merchandise + TV) - (staff salaries + scouting). You have wiggle room with cup money and transfers, but essentially the above is the formula for your team's salary cap.

Training-wise, you have the choice to make a guy too expensive or to limit his salary to something affordable. Perhaps if NT managers had a more sophisticated training philosophy, players would be cheaper but more effective. 51 total primary skill point centers are ~200k, 54 skill pointers are ~275k. If managers are creating players who are above anyone's salary cap, why would they continue to create them? This is a fantasy world that a little bit simulates real life. It shouldn't be hyper reality, as the developers have also said numerous times, although not as frequently recently. I mean there are 50 000 plus teams, including 16 D. 1 teams in Thailand. Currently Thailand has one professional basketball team in real life.

I don't think a skill drop should occur when a player is transferred, but I do think a game shape drop should, and I think it should be compounded . If guys are traveling all over the world, changing teams and time zones every week, they are going to get worn down and will not be on top of their game. This would compel NT managers to concentrate on truly effective players- salary efficient and good and who have a stable home where they have lots of bytes to eat.




Last edited by somdetsfinest at 10/11/2010 11:43:56 AM

I like the gameshape drop suggestion. I don't think it solves any problems though because the players that currently exist will still exist for 5 to 10 seasons.

Also, farm teams would still create these types of players.

I'm going to have to do some research and find out about this ;) I might try playing a great SG and the Center position on offence and see if he takes 3 pointers or not.

. Perhaps if NT managers had a more sophisticated training philosophy, players would be cheaper but more effective.

I really don't agree on this phrase.The secondaries are important,you had try to create player affordable for the managers because it means that they will have better shape and so on...
But there's a minimum in the primaries that a player had to reach to be effective in the international field
I was first scout and than big man responsible for the South African under 21 team in the past season,and in a so small country I had to fight against potential problems(there are few player with > all star potential in a country with 10-12 users every season),so I and my chief had to find a way to create the best player possible,and I am pretty sure that a large part of the Nt coaches and stuff all around the world make this work.But when we put on the field our triple 14 in inside skill with only decent secondaries,we had much better results than with his reserve with triple 10/11 and good secondaries
So,while the coach of an Nt had to understand the needs of the managers,they still have to ask to push over the limits the players on primaries,also if this caused a much greater expenses for the owners,because they need to have these players to obtain these results.You can close a gap of 3-4 levels in primaries with good secondaries,you can't colse a gap of 8-9-10 primaries against your adevrsaries


Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 12:01:12 PM

Let me know,I'm always curious to know these things ;D

I'd be very surprised if the Shooting Guard didn't start taking 3 pointers when playing against a center that may often have inept or even lower outside defence. I'll try playing a SG this week at PF and see what happens, and then I'll try it next week at Center.

I'd be very surprised if the Shooting Guard didn't start taking 3 pointers when playing against a center that may often have inept or even lower outside defence. I'll try playing a SG this week at PF and see what happens, and then I'll try it next week at Center.

That would be right...But the SG will be in the position to drain 3pts if you put him on C and on PF position,or he will more probably play in the paint so losing occasions to shot from the outside(where he has the advantage over his defender)?That's the main reason why I have doubt about this thing

Last edited by Steve Karenn at 10/11/2010 12:22:41 PM

hmm....I'll try it and find out. I think it would only work if the opponent plays a man to man defence though. Playing a SG at Center wouldn't work against a zone.